DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “each of the top electrode plates is filled with immediate-adjacent two of the bottom electrode plates.” It is unclear and indefinite as to how the top plates are filled with the bottom plates. For compact prosecution, it will be interpreted as each top plate is between two immediate-adjacent bottom electrode plates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0343718) in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0043455) in view of Park (U.S. Pub. 2011/0163415).
Claim 1: Wang et al. discloses a method of forming a capacitor structure, comprising:
depositing a hard mask layer (601; Fig. 6, paragraph 45) over tops of bottom electrode plates (401; Fig. 6, paragraph 45);
patterning the hard mask layer (601) (Fig. 7, paragraph 47);
etching the bottom electrode plates (401) based on the hard mask layer (601) after the hard mask layer (601) is patterned (Fig. 7, paragraph 47);
removing the hard mask layer (601) after the bottom electrode plates (401) are etched (Fig. 10; paragraph 56);
forming a dielectric layer (1101; Fig. 11, paragraph 58) over the bottom electrode plates (401); and
forming a top electrode plate (1102; Fig. 11, paragraph 58) over the dielectric layer (1101) and aligned with the bottom electrode plates (401).
Wang et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the hard mask layer is a single carbon film.
Kwon et al., however, discloses a single carbon film deposited by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process at a temperature in a range between 600 °C and 650 °C is a suitable material for a hard mask layer (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. with the disclosure of Kwon et al. to have made the hard mask layer a single carbon film deposited by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process at a temperature in a range between 600 °C and 650 °C because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein), and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (M.P.E.P. § 2144.05).
Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. appears not to explicitly disclose forming a plurality of top electrode plates over the dielectric layer and aligned with the bottom electrode plates.
Park, however, discloses forming a plurality of top electrode plates (410) over the dielectric layer (400) and aligned with the bottom electrode plates (390) in order to provide DRAM cells with increased degree of integration (Fig. 2e; paragraphs 3, 55 and 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. with the disclosure of Park to have formed a plurality of top electrode plates over the dielectric layer and aligned with the bottom electrode plates in order to provide DRAM cells with increased degree of integration (paragraph 3 of Park).
Claim 2: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 1, and Kwon et al. discloses wherein the single carbon film is deposited by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process at a temperature in a range between 600 °C and 650 °C (paragraph 7).
Claim 9: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 1, and Wang et al. further discloses wherein each of the bottom electrode plates (401) has a U-shape profile with a bottom portion connected to a conductive layer (201) (Fig. 4, paragraph 39), etching the bottom electrode plates (401) comprises etching sidewall portions of immediately-adjacent two of the bottom electrode plates (first and second 401 from the right) to define a common bottom electrode region.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10: Wang discloses a method of forming a capacitor structure, comprising:
depositing a hard mask layer (601; Fig. 6, paragraph 45) over a stack of nitride layers (204 and 206; Fig. 4, paragraph 36) and oxide layers (203 and 205; Fig. 4, paragraph 36) and a plurality of bottom electrode plates (401; Fig. 6, paragraph 45) within the stack of the nitride layers and the oxide layers;
patterning the hard mask layer (601) (paragraph 47);
etching the bottom electrode plates (401) and the stack of the nitride layers (204 and 206) and the oxide layers (203 and 205) based on the hard mask (601) after the hard mask (601) is patterned (Fig. 7, paragraph 47);
removing the hard mask (601) after the bottom electrode plates (401) and the stack of the nitride layers (204 and 206) and the oxide layers (203 and 205) are etched (Fig. 10, paragraph 56);
removing the oxide layers (203 and 205) (Figs. 8 and 10, paragraphs 49 and 55);
forming a dielectric layer (1101; Fig. 11, paragraph 58) over the bottom electrode plates (401); and
forming a top electrode plate (1102; Fig. 11, paragraph 58) over the dielectric layer (1101) and aligned with the bottom electrode plates (401).
Wang et al. appears not to explicitly disclose the hard mask layer is a single carbon film,
wherein the carbon film has compressive stress.
Kwon et al., however, discloses a single carbon film deposited by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process at a temperature in a range between 600 °C and 650 °C is a suitable material for a hard mask layer (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. with the disclosure of Kwon et al. to have made the hard mask layer a single carbon film deposited by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process at a temperature in a range between 600 °C and 650 °C because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is obvious (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07, and precedents cited therein), and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (M.P.E.P. § 2144.05). Since Kwon et al. discloses the carbon film is formed substantially by the same method as the claimed carbon film, Kwon et al. would disclose the carbon film has compressive stress.
Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. appears not to explicitly disclose forming a plurality of top electrode plates over the dielectric layer and aligned with the bottom electrode plates.
Park, however, discloses forming a plurality of top electrode plates (410) over the dielectric layer (400) and aligned with the bottom electrode plates (390) in order to provide DRAM cells with increased degree of integration (Fig. 2e; paragraphs 3, 55 and 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. with the disclosure of Park to have formed a plurality of top electrode plates over the dielectric layer and aligned with the bottom electrode plates in order to provide DRAM cells with increased degree of integration (paragraph 3 of Park).
Claim 11: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 10, and Kwon et al. discloses wherein the single carbon film is deposited by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process at a temperature in a range between 600 °C and 650 °C (paragraph 7).
Claim 14: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 10, and since Kwon et al. discloses the carbon film is formed substantially by the same method as the claimed carbon film, Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park would disclose wherein an etch selectivity of the carbon film and the oxide layers is equal to or greater than 30.
Claim 15: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 10, and Wang et al. further discloses wherein each of the bottom electrode plates (401) is a hollow tube with a U-shape profile (Fig. 10), and Park discloses each of the top electrode plates (410) is between two immediate-adjacent bottom electrode plates (the bottom electrode plate it is in and an adjacent bottom electrode plate).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0303639).
Claim 3: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 1.
Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park appears not to explicitly disclose further comprising:
depositing a first dielectric anti-reflective layer over the single carbon film; and
depositing a second dielectric anti-reflective layer directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer.
Ng et al., however, discloses depositing a first dielectric anti-reflective layer (206; Fig. 2A, paragraph 16) over the hard mask (204); and
depositing a second dielectric anti-reflective layer (208; Fig. 2A, paragraph 16) directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer (206) in order more accurately from the openings in the hard mask by improving control over patterning the photoresist layer (paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park with the disclosure of Ng et al. to have deposited a first dielectric anti-reflective layer over the single carbon film; and
deposited a second dielectric anti-reflective layer directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer in order more accurately from the openings in the hard mask by improving control over patterning the photoresist layer (paragraph 19).
Claim 12: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park discloses the method of claim 10.
Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park appears not to explicitly disclose further comprising:
depositing a first dielectric anti-reflective layer over the carbon film; and
depositing a second dielectric anti-reflective layer directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer.
Ng et al., however, discloses depositing a first dielectric anti-reflective layer (206; Fig. 2A, paragraph 16) over the hard mask (204); and
depositing a second dielectric anti-reflective layer (208; Fig. 2A, paragraph 16) directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer (206) in order more accurately from the openings in the hard mask by improving control over patterning the photoresist layer (paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park with the disclosure of Ng et al. to have deposited a first dielectric anti-reflective layer over the carbon film; and
deposited a second dielectric anti-reflective layer directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer in order more accurately from the openings in the hard mask by improving control over patterning the photoresist layer (paragraph 19).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of An et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0032371).
Claim 4: Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al. discloses the method of claim 3.
Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer are deposited by chemical vapor deposition processes.
An et al., however, discloses the first dielectric anti-reflective layer (330) and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer (340) are deposited by chemical vapor deposition processes (paragraph 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al. with the disclosure of An et al. to have the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer deposited by chemical vapor deposition processes
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the disclosure of An et al. that is in the same field of endeavor with Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al., before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to substitute the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer deposited by chemical vapor deposition processes as disclosed by An et al. for the deposition of the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al. The substituted components were known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have substituted the elements, and the simple substitution of the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer deposited by chemical vapor deposition processes disclosed by An et al. for the deposition of the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Kwon et al. in view of Park in view of Ng et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely deposition of the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer. (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer are silicon oxynitride and have different compositions of oxygen and silicon, as required by claim 5.
The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, forming an anti-reflective coating over the second dielectric anti-reflective layer; and
forming a photoresist layer over the anti-reflective coating, wherein the anti-reflective coating and the photoresist layer are formed by coating processes, and patterning the single carbon film comprises etching the single carbon film by the photoresist layer, as required by claim 6.
The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, wherein the bottom electrode plates are formed within a stack of nitride layers and oxide layers, etching the bottom electrode plates comprises:
etching the nitride layers and the oxide layers to a top surface of the lowest nitride layer, as required by claim 7.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and is objected to for the same reason.
The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, forming an anti-reflective coating over the second dielectric anti-reflective layer; and
forming a photoresist layer over the anti-reflective coating, wherein the anti-reflective coating and the photoresist layer are formed by coating processes, and patterning the carbon film comprises etching the carbon film by the photoresist layer, as required by claim 13.
Claims 16-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, depositing a first dielectric anti-reflective layer over the carbon film;
depositing a second dielectric anti-reflective layer directly over the first dielectric anti-reflective layer, wherein the first dielectric anti-reflective layer and the second dielectric anti-reflective layer have different compositions of oxygen and silicon;
forming an anti-reflective coating over the second dielectric anti-reflective layer; and
forming a photoresist layer over the anti-reflective coating, as required by claim 16.
Claims 17-20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 16 and are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815